Integration for greater impact

4.1 Socioeconomic co-benefits in project design

Starting in GEF-5, GEF-funded projects began placing greater emphasis on socioeconomic co-benefits, reflecting the GEF’s strategic shift toward integrating environmental and development goals. Project documents show growing recognition that addressing environmental degradation is more effective when aligned with local socioeconomic priorities. Although most projects considered socioeconomic co-benefits in their design, their relative emphasis depended on the project’s focus, which in turn tended to depend on the lead GEF Agency. It is useful to distinguish between two main project focuses:

• Projects primarily focused on environmental conservation, with secondary or complementary socioeconomic co-benefits. These are typically implemented by United Nations entities, international nongovernmental organizations, or conservation organizations. The Conflict to Coexistence (GEF ID 11156) project in Mexico, led by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), exemplifies this approach. Another example is the Restoring Ecological Corridors in the Mayo-Kebbi Quest, Chad, to Support Multiple Land and Forests Benefits (RECONNECT; GEF ID 9417), led by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), built on earlier initiatives in forestry and the management of agro-sylvo-pastoral systems, with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting wildlife migration corridors. In both cases, project designs acknowledged the importance of co-benefits as incentives for natural resource conservation. However, the projects’ consideration of co-benefits was limited in scope and detail at the design stage.
• Projects with socioeconomic development as the primary entry point, with environmental benefits integrated as complementary objectives. This approach is more commonly observed in projects led by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank. An illustrative example is the African Development Bank–led project Building Resilience for Food Security and Nutrition in Chad’s Rural Communities (GEF ID 9050). The theme of food security was central to its rationale and the design linked environmental objectives such as restoring degraded lands and protecting biodiversity to improved local food production. The theory of change emphasized small-scale irrigation, crop diversification, and the establishment of cereal banks. Another example is the Sustainable Productive Landscapes (GEF ID 9555) project in Mexico, implemented by the World Bank. This project prioritized rural development, including support for agricultural production and small and medium enterprises, while also addressing biodiversity conservation and the sustainable management of forests and soils.

Building on this dual-entry approach, GEF projects increasingly incorporate at least one socioeconomic co-benefit for marginalized groups, with women most frequently targeted. According to a recent IEO evaluation on inclusion, 70 percent of 111 completed projects and 79 percent of ongoing projects planned capacity-building activities specifically for women, making it the most consistently reported co-benefit (GEF IEO forthcoming-a). Other common co-benefits included civic empowerment and economic empowerment. In contrast, fewer projects explicitly targeted Indigenous Peoples, local communities, or youth. Youth did, nonetheless, receive notable support for capacity building (38 percent of completed and 32 percent of ongoing projects) and economic empowerment (14 percent and 26 percent, respectively). Some projects also generated unintended co-benefits for marginalized groups, such as increased health awareness among women, as documented in the terminal evaluation of a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project in Uzbekistan, Reducing Pressures on Natural Resources from Competing Land Use in Non-irrigated Arid Mountain, Semi-desert and Desert Landscapes (GEF ID 4600). While a range of other co-benefits—including improved services, public health, governance, and resilience—were also reported, they appeared in fewer than one-quarter of projects. Notably, the share of planned co-benefits that were fully implemented was similar for both completed and ongoing projects, suggesting consistent follow-through on social inclusion objectives once they are incorporated into design.

There is significant scope to strengthen project design by clearly articulating the pathways through which socioeconomic co-benefits are expected to be achieved. In many cases—particularly in conservation-focused projects—theories of change did not explicitly identify the mechanisms through which co-benefits would be realized. The connections between environmental interventions and socioeconomic outcomes were often assumed rather than clearly defined in these projects, with limited detail on how project activities would lead to outcomes such as improved market access, enterprise development, or diversified livelihoods.

A second area requiring greater attention in project design is the identification and mitigation of potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from environmental conservation measures. Among the 33 projects reviewed through case studies, only about 10 percent explicitly assessed these risks and identified mitigation measures. While environmental protection is widely recognized as beneficial at the societal level, it can impose short-term costs on individuals, households, and communities—such as restricted access to forests, fisheries, or other natural resources. Although the GEF Policy on Environmental and Social Safeguards (GEF 2018b) provides a framework for addressing such risks, its effective implementation depends on robust analysis and the incorporation of specific design features to mitigate negative socioeconomic effects.